Off-topic: The end of Freedom in GitHub
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
Microsoft-Owned GitHub Blocks Devs in US Sanctioned Countries
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/microsoft-owned-github-blocks-devs-in-us-sanctioned-countries/
--
Ignacio Agulló · name at domain
"The end"? GitHub's been proprietary since the beginning so there never was any freedom to be lost in the first place.
this!
I guess the only way that you can do version control in the most free way is storing your own repos. Do any of you know how good is notabug.org?
https://notabug.org/hp/gogs/issues/236
I think it would be a better option using https://framagit.org
notabug.org service uses gogs.io software
framagit.org service uses gitlab.com software
El 31/7/19 a les 3:09, name at domain ha escrit:
> https://notabug.org/hp/gogs/issues/236
>
> I think it would be a better option using https://framagit.org
Be careful, Gogs version of NAB is a fork and not an standalone version.
Yes, framagit service uses GitLab software.
Both are free software. There is no problem because they are self-hosted instances from other countries without these terms.
It's not good to censor the developers in "Enemies of United States". But this is not relevant to freedom. "Accessibility" is not an inherent requirement of freedom. (See "Four Essential Freedoms", there is no "accessibility".)
To be more specific, I can publish a GNU GPL v3-or-Later licensed free/libre software, but I can also explicitly prohibit anyone from using it without violating GNU GPL. I don't violate a free/libre license as long as I grant the "user subset" four essential freedoms. Anyone not belonging to the "user subset" cannot force me to share the source code to him. I don't need to care the freedom of "non-user" of the free/libre software.
To be very extreme, I can write a free/libre software and NOT to share it with anyone. In other words, anyone else don't even know the existence of the free/libre software. Then this is called a "trivial free/libre software". Though it does no good, it does no bad (as proprietary software does) either.
Sure, you are free (for example) to select your project members by race,
and anti-racist people are free to migrate to another platform.
Let's fitght to keep freedom on platform selection.
gitlab.org is another example for self-hosting and/or self-management.
El 30/7/19 a les 7:22, name at domain ha escrit:
> It's not good to censor the developers in "Enemies of United States".
> But this is not relevant to freedom. "Accessibility" is not an inherent
> requirement of freedom. (See "Four Essential Freedoms", there is no
> "accessibility".)
>
> To be more specific, I can publish a GNU GPL v3-or-Later licensed
> free/libre software, but I can also explicitly prohibit anyone from
> using it without violating GNU GPL. I don't violate a free/libre license
> as long as I grant the "user subset" four essential freedoms. Anyone not
> belonging to the "user subset" cannot force me to share the source code
> to him. I don't need to care the freedom of "non-user" of the free/libre
> software.
>
> To be very extreme, I can write a free/libre software and NOT to share
> it with anyone. In other words, anyone else don't even know the
> existence of the free/libre software. Then this is called a "trivial
> free/libre software". Though it does no good, it does no bad (as
> proprietary software does) either.
Every "user" who have one copy of free/libre software can exercise his re-distribution freedom (Freedom 2 and 3) to share it with "non-user". So, total censorship is technically impossible.
And this is why companies and governments want to make sharing illegal.
I understand that article talks about denying use of services, and about
using currently hosted projects to exclude some people participation.
https://github.com/1995parham/github-do-not-ban-us
Important projects are still hosted in Github.com and are affected by
this political exclusion:
https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl
https://github.com/torvalds/linux
https://github.com/sasanrose/phpredmin
https://github.com/mostafa/iptables_book
https://github.com/keyvank/tracy
And important ones because help to extend Trisquel project:
https://github.com/scollazo/docker-brew-trisquel-debootstrap
https://github.com/VanackSabbadium/TrisquelStuff
https://github.com/proninyaroslav/abrowser-android
https://github.com/proninyaroslav/abrowser-rpm
https://github.com/frnmst/trisquel-installation-script
El 30/7/19 a les 11:29, name at domain ha escrit:
> Every "user" who have one copy of free/libre software can exercise his
> re-distribution freedom (Freedom 2 and 3) to share it with "non-user".
> So, total censorship is technically impossible.
>
> And this is why companies and governments want to make sharing illegal.
On 30/07/19 07:22, wrote:
> It's not good to censor the developers in "Enemies of United States".
> But this is not relevant to freedom. "Accessibility" is not an
> inherent requirement of freedom. (See "Four Essential Freedoms", there
> is no "accessibility".)
Access != Accessibility
If you bothered to start reading the Four Freedoms, right at the
start you would find the First Freedom, Freedom 0, "The ability to run
the program for any purpose". There.
--
Ignacio Agulló · name at domain
I don't violate Freedom 0 if I deny someone to access a free/libre software.
You decide your refusals.
Microsoft/Github decide their refusals.
What freedoms decide Trisquel project to deny or restrict?
(not only on software code context but also on participation)
El 31/7/19 a les 5:13, name at domain ha escrit:
> I don't violate Freedom 0 if I deny someone to access a free/libre
> software.
"can also explicitly prohibit anyone from using it without violating GNU GPL"
A point of order: Publishing a program under the GPLv3 but telling them they can't use it would probably be a "further restriction" within the meaning of section 10. After all: "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program." So they *can* use it. :)
This seems similar to what happens when programs are released under the GPLv3 but say they're only for "non-commercial use" or "personal use only" or some such other thing.
The GPL's answer to these types of situations is: "If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term..." :)
No free/libre license forces the author to grant everyone access to the free/libre software, and GNU GPL is no exception.
I believe you are talking about different points and that you are both right. The common part of your scenarios is "Alice develops a program; she distributes a copy of it to Bob; she does not like Carol."
- nadebula.1984 says Alice does not have to distribute a copy of her program to Carol (true by law: being the author, she basically does whatever she wants with her work) and neither does Bob, even if the license he received is a free software license: freedom 2, to redistribute exact copies is a freedom, not an obligation;
- jxself says Alice forbidding the distribution, for instance by Bob, of the program to Carol through the license (she gives to Bob) turns that program nonfree for Bob (indeed, he cannot fully exercise freedom 2) but, for the GNU GPLv3, such a further restriction would have no effect, because it contradicts other terms; if Alice forbids Carol from using her program, through its license, then the program is nonfree (freedom 0 is violated), but, again, for the GNU GPLv3, such a further restriction would have no effect.
There may be a slight misunderstanding. That's not quite what I was mentioning. Let's back up for a moment to what nadebula.1984 said.
nadebula.1984's original statement that I was responding to about was exactly this: "I can publish a GNU GPL v3-or-Later licensed free/libre software, but I can also explicitly prohibit anyone from using it without violating GNU GPL."
Let's stop there for a moment. Note their words are "using it", not "distributing it" but "using" it. As in, executing the program on their CPU. Perhaps that isn't what they meant (since later comments refer to distributing/sharing) but it's what they said and I am not a mind reader to know what someone means so I can only reply to what was said. :) ("using" a program is not the same as "distributing" or "sharing" it.)
Anyway, I was pointing out that a prohibition on "using" the program (i.e., executing it on their CPU) would be a "further restriction" within the meaning of Section 10. That's why I had quoted the piece like "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program." So they can "use" it (assuming that they get a copy.) :)
But yes, so would the scenario you mentioned.
It seems that the same countries have been blocked from GitLab since GitLab moved to Google Cloud Platform.[1][2] This doesn't affect third-party instances like framagit.org or self-hosted instances, but note that in this respect GitLab's own instance is not more accessible than Github.
[1] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/migration/issues/649
[2] https://about.gitlab.com/2018/07/19/gcp-move-update/
How is this any different from Fedora's export ban? You can use Fedora in Cuba (the Cubans do not prohibit it), but you need to take it there first, which is illegal (circumventing the US sanctioned embargo).
They say it doesn't apply to them: "Fedora software in source code and binary code form are publicly available and are not subject to the EAR in accordance with §742.15(b)." Most of GitHub is probably also "publicly available" too and also exempt. But, Microsoft takes it further than they need to. They could for example do something like this and not block people at all by just saying "If you use GitHub you promise you're in one of those places...": https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ExportWarranties
The FSF has a good explanation there.
Besides; if you see a certain IP address it's hard to know that the person actually is in that country versus, for example, someone located somewhere else using TOR and their connection just happens to go through there. Assuming that an IP address equates to the ending physical location is faulty logic. In that case blocking these actually ends up blocking people that shouldn't be by expanding U.S. policy to include people that should not be affected. Not that the people in these countries deserve to be affected. Everyone deserves access to free software, which the FSF explains on that page. Microsoft could also take that approach, and say that they never "knowingly exported" (important wording there) to people in those countries because they can't really tell where the software was going to physically end up.
Is cuban people allowed to participate in Fedora development, sames as
UK people do?
Software is one side, project is the other side.
El 4/8/19 a les 6:57, name at domain ha escrit:
> How is this any different from Fedora's export ban? You can use Fedora
> in Cuba (the Cubans do not prohibit it), but you need to take it there
> first, which is illegal (circumventing the US sanctioned embargo).
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Export
>
>
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben